Obama said the top priority in solving the country's fiscal crisis "must be jobs and growth."

Quote:

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president would bring to the table a proposal for $1.6 trillion in new taxes on business and the wealthy when he begins discussions with congressional Republicans, a figure that Obama outlined in his most recent budget plan. The targeted revenue is twice the amount Obama discussed with Republican leaders during debt talks during the summer of 2011.

This whole inverse proportionate gas & grocery/interest rate thing is a bit loose in fact, to put it mildly.

go slap a chart of the US$ against the price of oil or copper then get back to me.

In 1995 the 30 yr bond was at 8% and oil was at $20 barrel.

Now the 30 yr is half that rate and oil 4-5 times that price

It's not loose, it's a fact of economics and math. If the currency in which a commodity is denomitated is worth more the commodity costs less and vice-versa.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

And FTR, every prediction, justification and reason Ben Bernanke has given for his actions have been wrong at just about if not every turn. The best thing Obama can do and I hope he does is get rid of this guy and get someone in who gives a shit.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

And FTR, every prediction, justification and reason Ben Bernanke has given for his actions have been wrong at just about if not every turn. The best thing Obama can do and I hope he does is get rid of this guy and get someone in who gives a shit.

And your recommendation is that someone come in on Jan. 1 and allow the interest rate to naturally flow up to what rate?

Interesting, I have to admit, I had never really thought about it that way.

Most people don't and unfortunately it's the best kept, dirty little secret of our society. I happen to follow the financial markets closely and have for going on 20+ years now.

Don't be fooled though, there are peope who will take the other side of the coin on this argument and say higher rates would choke off the economy, hurt borrowing and what not.

I call that bunk because of the impacts it has on everyday people like I have described. My argument is if you make the cost of living cheaper then people will have and spend more money thus offsetting any impacts to borrowing.

It actually drives consumption which will drive demand which will drive borrowing.

As opposed to the status quo where we make it cheaper to maintain the status quo.

We have had rates low for years and what have we seen? Increased joblessness. Increased failed businesses and a housing market that is in no better shape than it was 4-5 years ago. We have seen gas prices soar, energy prices soar and food prices soar.

So you can be the judge but I think it's time to try what we have been stubbornly refusing to try for the last few years.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

And your recommendation is that someone come in on Jan. 1 and allow the interest rate to naturally flow up to what rate?

I don't know that you can have a specific target, Jensen. You have to let the market make that decision for a while until the data starts to show some overheating. But given the state of our economy we are a long way off from overheating. When we get back to 5% unemployment it's probably time to worry about inflation.

But that's just it. We are not making data-driven decisions. We, we being the Fed, are making stereo-typical, Wall St. benefiting decisions. These economits know the impact of a weak $ and they will claim they have no control over the $, just interest rates. But that is bunk since one directly impacts the other.

How many times have we heard Bernanke now come out and say "we are going to keep rates low until...". First it was into 2012, then 2013, now 2014.
Meanwhile the imapcts of those decisions are burying the everyday Joe.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

My argument is if you make the cost of living cheaper then people will have and spend more money thus offsetting any impacts to borrowing.

But paying your monthly mortgage and car payment is your cost of living. And especially businesses who are thinking about making purchases. A farmer who wants a new combine cares about interest rates and depreciation rates. A clothing store that wants to expand into the adjacent room cares about interest rates.

Quote:

We have had rates low for years and what have we seen? Increased joblessness. Increased failed businesses and a housing market that is in no better shape than it was 4-5 years ago. We have seen gas prices soar, energy prices soar and food prices soar.

We actually haven't seen increased joblessness and failed businesses. We haven't even seen soaring food prices.

But paying your monthly mortgage and car payment is your cost of living. And especially businesses who are thinking about making purchases. A farmer who wants a new combine cares about interest rates and depreciation rates. A clothing store that wants to expand into the adjacent room cares about interest rates.

We actually haven't seen increased joblessness and failed businesses. We haven't even seen soaring food prices.

First of all what you are arguing in the current context is to do nothing but throwing a lifejacket to someone who is in a whirlpool. Sure a farmer cares about rates. But I bet he cares about the sale of his crops too! A clothing store may want to expand but if less people are walking through their door then what is the point in expanding, regardless of cost?

And yes, we have seen joblessness increase. We have seen food and gas prices go up.

A mortgage and car payment could be argued that it is not a cost of living. I know plenty of people who rent and either pay cash for older cars or take the bus. But to cede your point I still have to put gas in that car, pay for the utilities on that house and eat.

I don't know any business owner who would argue at paying a higher interest rate at the expense of increased business. In fact I would argue that the increased business would give them reason to expand, referring to your clothing store analogy, even at a higher cost.

I mean what you are arguing is like saying someone wants to only make $15k a year as opposed to $150k because they don't want to pay higher taxes.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

WRONG! What makes markets uncertain is when goverments get to pawing things. Markey analysts analyze the markets and have a good bead on things when they are market driven. It's when regulation and tax reform start getting thrown into the mix that you start getting the "uncertainty".

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

Oil is such a unique commodity that it's hard to slap it across another single chart and find the key to its price trend.

Horseshit but whatever. Oil, copper, gold. These things have all soared while our $ has tanked. Why? Certainly not inflation like the myth would have you believe. It's because they are denominated in $'s and the $ has been getting sold off since the middle of Bush.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

I don't know any business owner who would argue at paying a higher interest rate at the expense of increased business. In fact I would argue that the increased business would give them reason to expand, referring to your clothing store analogy, even at a higher cost.

One thing that occurs to me is that you make it sound as if the retail industry has been in a 4 year spiral with no hope of stabilizing. Do the facts really back you up on that?